Deepak Prasad Nayak and Others vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors

Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.—The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order contained in Memo No. MGT/03/2004/1314/Bokaro dated 25.09.2012, whereby the petitioners have been sent from Bokaro district to Giridih district. The petitioners, who are Cluster Resource Persons (CRPs) working in different Blocks of Bokaro district, have been sought to be sent to Giridih district. The grievance of the petitioners is that their appointments were under a District Level Scheme and they can not be sent to another district by the concerned authorities of Bokaro district.

The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents by filing counter affidavit. It has been stated, inter alia that the petitioners were engaged on contractual basis under the scheme of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. They are meant for mobilizing the students for taking admission in school. Though the petitioners were engaged for that purpose in Bokaro district, the CRPs in the Bokaro district are more than the required number of the sanctioned schools, whereas in some districts there are less number of CRPs, Giridih district is one of those districts Giridih district is nearby district and, as such, the petitioners have been sought to be adjusted in Giridih district under that circumstance and in accordance with the provision of the scheme. There is no arbitrariness or illegality in sending the petitioner to Giridih district. The petitioners are not in regular employment borne in any district cadre. They have been engaged on contractual basis in a scheme namely Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and they have been adjusted for the purpose of scheme. They can not claim their engagements in a particular district in absence of any such provision.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find substance in the contentions and submissions of the respondents. Admittedly, the petitioners are engaged on contractual basis under a scheme. It is true that they were engaged in Bokaro district, but according to the State Level Committee, engagements of CRPs in Bokaro district were in excess of the required number, whereas the number of CRPs is less in Giridih district. The order has been issued for proportionate adjustment of the CRPs.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners disputed the said position and has said that the proportion of CRPs in different districts, as has been claimed by the respondents, is factually incorrect As a matter of fact, the CRPs in Bokaro district are not more than the required and the claim of adjustment on the basis of the proportion in different districts is baseless.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record.

It is not in dispute that the petitioners are engaged on contractual basis under a scheme called ''Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan''. The petitioners were engaged in Bokaro district. Now they have been sent to Giridih district. The respondents have claimed that the petitioners are being sent only to adjust the proportionate number according to the requirement in each district. However, the reason has been disputed by the petitioners.

Considering the dispute from any legal angle. I find no arbitrariness in the impugned order. The adjustment is said to be required for the purpose of the scheme. Though the petitioners have disputed that ground, such dispute cannot be adjudicated and decided in writ jurisdiction of this Court. No legal provision has been brought to my notice prohibiting such adjustment. I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.